Get site setting

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds useful context about the RC method and the authentication note ('do not provide a session key'), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence is necessary: one for the core function and one for the method and authentication note. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete given the low complexity. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, annotations cover behavioral traits, and an output schema exists. The description provides the essential context: what it does, how it accesses the API, and a critical authentication constraint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters ('setting_name' and 'response_format') have clear descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read one global LimeSurvey setting.' This uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('global LimeSurvey setting'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'limesurvey_get_available_site_settings' which lists all settings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by specifying the underlying RC method and authentication handling ('do not provide a session key'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_available_site_settings) or provide exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.